Re: >Subject: Re: First post: Fluoresce

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: >Subject: Re: First post: Fluoresce
From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 09:58:26 -0700

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netFri Oct 18 21:54:09 1996
> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:20:48 +0000
> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: >Subject: Re: First post: Fluoresce

<SNIP>

> >> > When the primary was
> >> > excited with an RF generator and the secondary connected to a
> >> > 40 watt fluorescent tube with a single wire (return path
> >> > through the air), the lamp could be fully illuminated with
> >> > less than 6 watts.

<SNIP>
> 
> Keep in mind that light is radiant energy and must be less than the energy
> at the input of the Tesla coil or you will have over unity energy. The
> efficacy of the light is dependent on color, frequency, and bandwidth. The
> efficacy of white light (wide bandwidth) is about 187 lumens per watt. The
> lumen is light power. One footcandle is one lumen per square foot. A 40 watt
> fluorescent lamp is about 100 lumens per watt.
> Light output energy = Tesla input energy minus losses.
> 
> Jack C.

Phil,

This brings up an interesting question - do you have any measurements on
the overall conversion efficiency (i.e., lumens out versus watts in)?  
Seems that I remember RF excitation being significantly more effective
in lighting fluorescents. 

To Jack's point, on Chip's list at least, you can't get something for
nothing. I once had a prof who concisely summarized the 1st and 2nd laws
of Thermodynamics:
  1. You can't Win!
  2. You can't even break even!  :^)

Safe coilin' to ya!

-- Bert --